STP, if there was ever an engine built, that hasn't been tried in a TQ, I don't know what it would have been. You aren't old enough, to have seen all the different combo's tried, it was just like full midgets, just before, and after WWII, anything that could be had, was used, and, a heck of a lot of inventivness was displayed. Early on, the Crosley was probably the most dominate, because of their availability, and cost, Crosley made them for everything, the Government bought them by the bazillions, for generators and what ever, almost every reefer truck had one mounted on the front of the trailer, keeping the cargo cold, I was making a parts sale at the Ford dealer I worked at, in the mid 50's, to a trucker, who had his rig parked out front, all of a sudden, he took off like a bullet, he had heard the Crosley on his rig go down, and in those days, that coulda been the signal that someone was removing it from his trailer, because those engines had steel, rather than cast cranks in them, and they were the choice of the day. I still contend, our rules as far as engines go, cover the bases well, there is wiggle room, and the choice to move to a modern tech engine, without a lot of expense, and as far as the 600 vs the 750's of today, the 600 is still the choice, the 750 just doesn't seem to be a race engine, whereas the 1000's of today, are like the 600's, race built from the factory, which is the least expensive way to go. I wouldn't run off anyone, who shows up with a new chassis, be it Beast, or any of the others being built, Spike, XXX, still some coming from down under, Willis has 2, the one's I built, Nichols built, Stapp, Doemelt, all still good chassis, so new isn't always new, and better. Good luck! Bob!

I personally feel that the closer you make the rules and regulations were the average person with the basic hand tools can perform more of the work on their engine program, without the need to own a machine shop or pay for someone else to do the work, this will create a more cost effective engine program...

@ school in Michigan be back this weekend, good luck to all this week on and off the racetrack... Mark Widener

You're right, driver has a lot to do with it. I completely agree with that, and I'm not saying that it isn't, never did. But go look at the winners this year, it's all the same people. That's not the point though. You can be happy with 5th all day long, that's great, and I'm happy for you that that is fine with you. 5th isn't why we go to the track. We go to have fun, but we go to win.

Obviously I'm not getting my point across, so I'm pretty much done on the topic for now, I've got other stuff to spend my time on rather than wasting my time with this.

1. TQ's need a better motor deal. They need something to compete with the 836 Honda.

2. Keep the rear end, it makes them cool.

3. Make the cars so the average Joe can take a toolbox to the track and race, and doesn't need an engineering degree in order to make everything work. That's why other forms of racing are popular, they are easier for people to get involved with.

So with those three things, I've said my peace, just like I said, not worth wasting my time on it anymore.

bob as far as the frame goes, ours is built with the same tubing used for midgets. is that something that you cant just do? the higher weight limit will help with making bigger thicker frames. i agree though some frames are not strong enough for much more engine, or some of the bigger tracks.
Will

Will, unless it's 1 3/8 OD, it isn't full midget tube, I'm thinkin Beast built them all out of 1 1/4 OD, but maybe not. What we could really use, is a more equal weight rule, like the mini's have, at least a lot of folks would feel better about what they have, but I think that idea has long whiskers by now! Bob!

i completely agree with you bob. scott Brannin built our car Kreeper chassis. i am thanking it is the full midget tubing and we are at least 200lbs over the current weight.
Will

Billie, just realized whose car you were working with, my driver, Kyle Lux bought that new, it's a Beast chassis, with a Winters, or was, and a Honda. Kyle never said who had it now, what broke, that caused you the down time, engine, or something else? Bob!

Yes Bob, that's the car. Engine has been the issue. Been chasing problems all year, but on a "no budget" operation, haven't been able to iron it out. We know what we need to do, just money is the issue at this point. With two businesses being funded out of our pockets to have them moving has taken so much of our time and money.
That's why I'm such a proponent of new engines, as they're ready to go, drop them in and go. But the ones to win races in the series, you cannot run.
Posted via Mobile Device

Mini sprints use a 1 1/4" 090 4130 top rail. People do race old full midget frames and convert them over to chain the extra tube size in top rail adds about 12 lbs to the car weight. I bought an old TQ out of Illinoise a few years ago to run at little Salem when they were going to put them on the program. It was goss green so I new it had to be fast. Got home and looked at it. The frame was so light I wouldn't let my kid drive it and mason decided he wasn't going to race them anyhow so it's still sitting in my pole barn. The old frames with the exception of a few looked a little light to be racing with. It's hard to build a frame for what they can sell you a new one for. Unless you have ideas you want to try out off the shelf is better and probably cheeper.

Boy, how familiar does that sound, I only had one business, but was able to do my own work, and for others, so it kinda worked out, then when I retired, and now only have SS, and no savings or sponsors, 05 is when I retired, and oddly enough, that's when I went to the 600R, and for a long time now, have been able to make the racing, pay for itself. Hope things work out for ya, looks like it may be one and done for us this year, or for a while, I don't want to take Kyle away from his work, since he at least has one, for now. I'm sure it will not effect the other racers, us being absent, altho it will mean one less target! Bob!

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 PM ----------

Our chassis specs are 1 1/4, .095 in the cage area, and 1 1/4 -.065 minimum on other frame rails, other bracing can be no less that .065, there is very little weight loss by using thinner tube, I have a catalog with all the per foot weights of moly tube, and wall thickness isn't that much of a factor, my chassis, with all mounts, and dzus tabs typically went out at between 95, and 100 lbs, the complete car, at the track, and fluids, came in at 675 with a Honda, you can deduct about 30 off that with the 600. Bob!: